SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
onEarth reports
President Obama officially rejected the Keystone XL pipeline [November 6], just days after TransCanada begged for a stay of execution.
[...] Obama ought to keep his veto pen handy, just in case. Congressional Republicans have so far been quiet today about their reaction to the president's decision, but they may yet use some legislative trickery to try to approve KXL against his wishes.
[...] TransCanada bought hundreds of miles of property easements from U.S. landowners to clear a path for the pipeline. If it decides to abandon the project, it could sell those rights to other companies, even if the easements were purchased from unwilling landowners through eminent domain. (Permissive eminent domain laws in many states allow companies to do almost whatever they want with the property once they have it.) Expect fights between property owners and TransCanada to continue.
[...] Existing tar sands mines will continue to produce crude. KXL's demise, however, is a major threat to expansion. Tar sands mines are expensive to start up. Even when oil was selling for more than $90 per barrel, several companies canceled their planned tar sands projects. The price per barrel is now in the mid-$40s, making tar sands crude uneconomic--even if there were a pipeline to transport it cheaply to refineries.
Without KXL, fewer companies will want to take a chance on tar sands. Just as important, the pipeline's rejection sends a signal to investors that politicians and the public are concerned about the impacts of tar sands on the climate.
TransCanada was once so confident that Keystone XL would win approval that the company contracted the manufacture of 661,670 tons of pipe--most of what was required for KXL. The company has not said exactly how much pipe it already has on hand, but a 2011 report[PDF] from Cornell University identified 70,000 tons that had been received in U.S. ports.
[...] The company needed federal approval for KXL only because it crossed national borders. It can likely repurpose much or all of the pipe for its many other pipelines [paywall] that have been approved in the United States and Canada. If that doesn't work, sale is always an option.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by gnuman on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:18AM
Keystone XL is not dead and Obama's move is purely political, catering to both the US fracking and environmental lobby. The only way to limit CO2 emissions is to put a tax or limit of some sort on emissions, not on production. Trying to put a limit on production is as effective as the entire "war on drugs" - supply will always be found if there is demand.
Having said that, Keystone XL will just get refiled after US elects a republican president, and promptly accepted. An alternative, is for oil pipelines to be build to the west or east coasts of Canada, where oil will be exported outside of North America. Another alternative is for the pipeline not to cross the border, but to have rail or trucks move the oil across it between one end of the pipeline and put it in the US end of the pipe on the other end. Yes, literally, that would be possible. Or continue to ship it with other dangerous means, like anything other than pipeline.
As I said, you cannot fix global warming by fiddling with any given oil supply source.
The price per barrel is now in the mid-$40s, making tar sands crude uneconomic
And world oil consumption rate is going up. More oil is needed everyday. Sadly, those are the facts. This entire pipeline is nothing buy red herring when it comes to global warming.
http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx [indexmundi.com]
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/ [eia.gov]
(Score: 5, Touché) by Bill Evans on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:33AM
So, you're saying "never", then?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @02:35AM
I wish. Instead we'll see the usual cycle, Republicans destroy the country and the economy and the people finally get sick of it and vote in Democrats, then the Democrats fix the country and the economy, and after a short while the people forget all the damage Republicans did and vote them back in, causing the whole thing of destruction and repair to repeat endlessly.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @02:57AM
Y'mean like repealing Glass-Steagall and setting up the destruction of the economy?
...or screwing up the chance to get single-payer healthcare implemented while they had a majority?
...then, implementing a mandated Republican-written plan that is a giveaway to for-profit insurance companies (who don't provide any actual healthcare)?
Is that what you mean by Democrats "fixing" things?
Both the Reds and the Blues are Right^W Wrong-Wing and evil.
You need to switch off Lamestream Media.
It's filling your head with propaganda.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @04:46PM
Yes, you need to listen to media outlets that tell you what you want to hear. THAT way you know its the truth! Everything else is propaganda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @06:14PM
A bigger problem than how traditional corporate media outlets distort stories beyond recognition (to please corporate advertisers and/or the regime) is which stories they purposely omit from their coverage.
If you go to those sources of "journalism", you are guaranteed not only to get purposeful lies, you will also miss much of what is going on.
I've mentioned multiple times before that there are places which vet what is published by media outlets.
Chief among those are Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR.org), Media Matters for America, and PolitiFact. [soylentnews.org]
(I especially appreciate the wit of PolitiFact's Pants On Fire rating.)
After a while, I got tired of having to make an extra effort to verify the truthfulness of every single story covered by Lamestream Media (not to mention the huge swath of the news that I was missing) and found that it's much easier to avoid them and go to more reliable sources from the start.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday November 08 2015, @09:13PM
You have a limited perspective. Both parties have consistently been acting to destroy the country for their own advantage. Just in slightly different ways. I think people in general derive more benefits out of the way the Democrats destroy the country, but it's a close call.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by bziman on Sunday November 08 2015, @07:18PM
Nonsense... there is, unfortunately, a very strong chance that Clinton will get the nomination, and then you'll have an all-Republican ballot for president.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:46AM
Wow. Wanna talk about long timelines?
Robert Reich's GOP friend says of the 2016 GOP candidates "They're All Nuts" [alternet.org]
Core Republicans hate the GOP's clown car.
How do you expect a victory when the party has driven away its base?
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:58AM
How do you expect a victory when the party has driven away its base?
Hey, US elected G.W. Bush?
But more seriously, tar sand projects are on schedule for ramp up by about 2030. I think by then there will be pipelines built (and US elect some republican president). This includs XL and replacement (widening) of current pipelines and replacing gas pipelines with oil pipelines. The only way this will not happen is if demand for oil is cut drastically.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @02:42AM
US elected G.W. Bush
Actually, SCOTUS violated the US Constitution and appointed him.
The President Select [google.com]
if demand for oil is cut drastically
Warmer winters == less heating oil needed
Young people are broke and are driving less
People without jobs have less disposable income to spend
If consumption isn't going -down-, it's only because of dumping by OPEC.
As the article said, this most-expensive type of petroleum is very unattractive and becoming moreso because of the low market prices.
My take is that OPEC knows that restrictions on carbon are coming and they're getting what profit they can while they can.
Battery improvements are the big question mark as to how quickly fossil fuels will be too expensive to be an affordable choice.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday November 08 2015, @07:22AM
And world oil consumption rate is going up. More oil is needed everyday.
Yes, usage is still going up, but the rate of increase is leveling off somewhat. And you can already see it in the prices at the pump.
The raising of mpg standards of cars, coupled with the push for electrics is making a dent in demand.
Future demand growth is expected to centered in China, India, and the Middle east. China is on a road building binge, an vehicle ownership in India starting to grow.
However, that surge might be blunted by the same move into electric vehicles.
Side Issue:
Could it be that Cash for Clunkers [wikipedia.org] really did work after all, and all those studies saying it was a failure were either premature, or looking for a much greater change in mpg than was really necessary? Some states are still running Clunker retirement [ca.gov] program.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.